Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992), as amended (SEA), as follows: Apichart’s acts violated Section 242 (1), Eng’s acts violated Sections 242 (2) and 315, and Supanee’s acts violated Section 242 (1
of debenture without approval in violation of Section 33 and subject to the penalties under Section 268 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA); meanwhile, Ornpaphat and Kanyakorn
approval from the SEC was in violation of Section 33 and subject to the penalties under Section 268 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). The Criminal Fining Committee therefore has
which will act as initial screener of ICO issuer. After the related notifications come into effect, SEC will initially approve ICO portals. ICO portals must be Thai companies with a minimum registered
securities companies. In this regard, since the offenses relating to unfair securities trading practices are also listed as a predicate offense under the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999), the SEC has
execution of the scheme.Their actions were in violation of Sections 243 (1), (2) in conjunction with Section 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and Sections 83 and 86 of the Penal Code
securities without approval in the category of debenture in violation of Section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). The SEC has therefore filed separate complaints against the four
Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 (SEA) in conjunction with Section 83 and Section 86 of the Penal Code, and liable to the penalties under Section 296 of the SEA, i.e., imprisonment for up to two years or a
taking an unfair advantage of other persons in violation of Section 241 and liable to the penalties under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992.In this case, the offender refused to enter
the penalties under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). They all agreed to enter the criminal fining process.Consequently, Somporn was fined at the amount of 612,500 baht